When it comes to types of ads, advertisers and consumers agree on the effectiveness of some, but disagree on others.
Consumers and advertisers both like ads that amuse:
Looking at advertisements that might not work:
Advertisers are using certain types of strategies for addressing the economic crisis, but is it working with consumers, asks the report:
Advertisers and those to whom they are advertising tend to see the world somewhat differently, concludes the report. For example, for a particular television ad advertisers are often thinking sales while consumers are more likely to think of the ad as something they liked watching.
According to Marianne Foley, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives at Harris Interactive, "... this isn‘t the most important story though. The research indicates that in this current economic environment, messages that talk money are of paramount interest to consumers... ads that emphasize value propositions or luxuries for less appeal to consumers more so than empathy and cheerleading.
Effectiveness Of Advertising Types (Base: Advertisers; % of Respondents)"How effective do you think each of these characteristics of advertising are?" | ||||
ADS THAT: | Very effective | Somewhat effective | Not that effective | Not at all effective |
make me stop and think | 53% | 41% | 5% | 1% |
give me new information | 51 | 45 | 3 | * |
are entertaining | 41 | 48 | 9 | 1 |
are informative | 37 | 54 | 9 | 1 |
are funny | 32 | 56 | 10 | 2 |
have a product demonstration | 27 | 56 | 15 | 2 |
are integrated into the feel of the program | 26 | 52 | 20 | 3 |
show before/after | 24 | 53 | 20 | 3 |
reinforce a message I already know | 21 | 53 | 22 | 4 |
don‘t take themselves seriously | 14 | 48 | 29 | 9 |
are about a serious topic that may leave me feeling slightly guilty | 5 | 33 | 44 | 18 |
are scary | 3 | 22 | 43 | 32 |
Source: LinkedIn Research Network/Harris Poll, July, 2009 |
Effectiveness Of Advertising Types (Base: All U.S. Adults; % of Consumers) "How effective do you think each of these characteristics of advertising are?" | ||||
ADS THAT: | Very Effective | Somewhat Effective | Not that Effective | Not at all Effective |
are entertaining | 34% | 53% | 8% | 5% |
are funny | 33 | 52 | 10 | 5 |
are informative | 30 | 58 | 8 | 4 |
make me stop and think | 30 | 55 | 9 | 5 |
give me new information | 29 | 60 | 7 | 4 |
have a product demonstration | 20 | 55 | 18 | 7 |
show before/after | 13 | 50 | 25 | 12 |
don‘t take themselves seriously | 11 | 42 | 29 | 18 |
reinforce a message I already know | 10 | 47 | 30 | 12 |
are integrated into the feel of the program | 7 | 45 | 34 | 14 |
are about a serious topic that may leave me feeling slightly guilty | 6 | 29 | 38 | 27 |
are scary | 3 | 20 | 36 | 41 |
Source: LinkedIn Research Network/Harris Poll, July, 2009 |
Please visit HarrisInteractive here to find PDF file of the LinkedIn Research Network/Harris Poll
I've always found it odd to simply ask people what they think is effective versus monitoring their progression through the purchase funnel and evaluating different communications tactics against that progression. 99.9% of the time it's a set of inputs and cues we've collected over time that takes us from awareness towards action, each likely influencing us in different ways and on different levels. While there may be interesting takeaways from the study (as there always are when you invite feedback), I wish you had put your commentary and observations in context of the bigger effectiveness picture. My feeling is that you oversimplified and lost substance in the process.
Interesting statistics. I think it'd be great to see the same questions asked about advertisements that invoke fear - insurance company showing a car accident, financial company saying you'll lose your retirement money, home alarm systems company showing a break-in etc. Maybe this is covered under "Ads that are about a serious topic..." But, I find it amazing that companies will take advantage of consumers' lack of confidence in the economy and increased sense of vulnerability to sell their goods and services. In my opinion, these are companies that I would trust the least. It's dirty marketing.
Jack,
It seems we were born on the same planet! Taking the contrarian approach in my coaching practice, I have reached the same conclusion years ago.
Often, companies developing ads have to justify their existence and customer costs and can be blinded by what they want to happen. Some companies feel they know what's best without having to ask the hoi polloi.
The passive advertising vs. the dynamic ads like on websites create a dilemma. The dashboard needs different criteria on them. Sometimes ads are as simple as marking a "place" in the clients' spheres.
My professional perspective is that marketing has been made too complicated. There is less emphasis on positioning why people need to know about a company/service rather than promoting a calculated formula to accrue money for the marketing campaign.
Within my own company, there is a refreshed return to basics of listening and researching industry aspects then bringing our clients the information. Self selection is a powerful connection and clients appreciate it as part of our service.
Trouble is, one group, the advertisers, has a vested interest in defending the type of advertising it has chosen to do, and the other group, the audience, hasn't a clue what works and what doesn't.
Fact is, Tilly has it just about right: Why don't we look at the results and the behavior of the targets, and forget about what the targets and the shooters *think* is what works?